Continuing with Sumo

Gutsick on Radiometric and Heat - My Initial Comments with Answers · Continuing with Edelwise, and later Sumo · Continuing with Sumo

Last lines

of the previous parts of the discussion were divided into A, B and C, thematically. I continue this for two lines, and then, unfortunately, Sumo changes the setup.

A

Sumo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

A - I didn’t say causality was limited to mechanistic process. I was simply listing a few ways in which it is investigated. If you have a method for empirically demonstrating how the source of a miracle could be identified, please share.

The heat problem is not simply put down to what science cannot test. We can test/demonstrate the impact a flood and a young earth would have. There is billions of years worth of decay product on the planet. To account for all of that decaf product, it just 6000 years, the speed required would generate so much energy, the heat byproduct would melt the earth. And that’s just the thermal radiation. The ionizing radiation would the irradiate any thing that managed to live on a melted planet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sumo A "I didn’t say causality was limited to mechanistic process."

How come it came off like that? Let's see:

"I was simply listing a few ways in which it is investigated."

The ones appropriate for mechanistic processes.

"If you have a method for empirically demonstrating how the source of a miracle could be identified, please share."

Empirical demonstration of a fact being miraculous, as used in Lourdes:
a) identify a sick person
b) identify condition as beyond all known cures
c) identify cure as instantaneous, complete and without relapses.

"The heat problem is not simply put down to what science cannot test. We can test/demonstrate the impact a flood and a young earth would have. There is billions of years worth of decay product on the planet."

Is there over 2,000 million years' worth of decay in a lava flow from 1800 / 1801, on Hawaii?

Or even over 2 million years, supposing 2,960 was European spelling for 2.960

CMI cited J. G. Punkhouser and J.J. Naughton, ‘He and Ar in ultramafic inclusions’, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.73,1968, pp. 4601-4607.

I found the article on the title "How do you date a New Zealand volcano?" on their site.

"To account for all of that decaf product, it just 6000 years, the speed required would generate so much energy, the heat byproduct would melt the earth. And that’s just the thermal radiation. The ionizing radiation would the irradiate any thing that managed to live on a melted planet."

I am very sure that if you had given me the time to go through the video, I would already have made another comment where Gutsick is coming to this. And you could have contacted me under that or those. Under THIS comment, please let it suffice for now that New Zealand volcanos are not on the side of your argument.

B

Sumo

B - is not incorrect. It’s pretty much definitionally correct. A sound scientific hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable. And you didn’t answer the question.

“Like any other unique event”

A miracle isn’t like any other unique event. You’re adding an entire dimension, a new entity. We know nature and natural events exist.

The Big Bang for example, we can observe the redshift of galaxies and the CMB, make precise calculations and applicable predictions, cross reference with other natural phenomena like black holes. We can’t do anything of the sort with miracles. And you thought my premise was obtuse?

Also you seem to be conflating a bit of historical approach with scientific hypothesis. Or some miracle that happened in the past. If a hypothesis requires a miracle that doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s unique. It could just be an incomplete theorem that requires a miracle.

Either way, it’s clear that a miracle is not testable and falsifiable like any other unique event. I’ve already explained how we gather evidence for the Big Bang. It could be falsified in a similar manner, if one could demonstrate a theory of quantum mechanics that renders our idea of the Big Bang incorrect. A miracle is not testable and falsifiable in the same way a unique natural event is.

Even if we did take the more historical approach. A singular event in history. While no longer a scientific hypothesis, the historical method relies more on degrees of confidence. Corroborating documentation and attestation. Even if we had robust documentation of an event that reads like a miracle - you’re still trouble with demonstrating such a thing is even possible, let alone the source and circumstances of a miracle in the past.

I’m genuinely interested, how his a miracle testable and falsifiable. What methodology would you use?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

B - "A sound scientific hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable."

Yes, but that is something else.

"And you didn’t answer the question."

I did : “Like any other unique event”

"A miracle isn’t like any other unique event."

Now THAT'S your bias.

"You’re adding an entire dimension, a new entity. We know nature and natural events exist."

We know natural events exist by the same faculty that tell observers they saw miracles : eyesight, hearing, touch, smell, taste. We conclude nature from them and classify them as natural events, by a faculty which very clearly itself is an added entire dimension, a new entity : reason.

"The Big Bang for example, we can observe the redshift of galaxies and the CMB, make precise calculations and applicable predictions, cross reference with other natural phenomena like black holes."

And all this on the untestable presupposition that what we see now is a prolongation of a process that has gone on as long as possible (an expansion can't have gone on even longer than since it was smaller than zero cubic nanometers).

Plus the untestable presupposition that the angle of alpha Centauri annual back and forth 0.76 arc seconds is parallax, i e that Earth is moving.

"We can’t do anything of the sort with miracles. And you thought my premise was obtuse?"

The obtusity was actually about part C, but it's kind of obtuse to shout out "we CAN'T do ANYTHING of the SORT with miracles" when it's simply not your already existing routine to do that.

"Also you seem to be conflating a bit of historical approach with scientific hypothesis. Or some miracle that happened in the past."

Most events, therefore most miracles happened in the past. Not necessarily compared to the future, but at least compared to the present.

Most events are unique and either insignificant and lost or verifiable by historic record.

"If a hypothesis requires a miracle that doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s unique. It could just be an incomplete theorem that requires a miracle."

RATE project could indeed have been making an incomplete theorem about how the heat problem is to be approached.

But in that case you have no "it's invalid as science, because it requires a miracle" ... my discussion is about what you do when it actually does require a miracle on some plane, and it's not just an incomplete theorem.

"Either way, it’s clear that a miracle is not testable and falsifiable like any other unique event."

It's clear how you are biassed on the point.

"I’ve already explained how we gather evidence for the Big Bang. It could be falsified in a similar manner, if one could demonstrate a theory of quantum mechanics that renders our idea of the Big Bang incorrect. A miracle is not testable and falsifiable in the same way a unique natural event is."

A miracle is in principle falsifiable by the "what if the event didn't occur" - meaning it is adequately and non-solipsistically verified by good evidence for the event.

"Even if we did take the more historical approach. A singular event in history. While no longer a scientific hypothesis, the historical method relies more on degrees of confidence."

Indeed.

"Corroborating documentation and attestation."

The world wide flood is abundantly attested around the world in non-Hebrew and pagan traditions.

"Even if we had robust documentation of an event that reads like a miracle - you’re still trouble with demonstrating such a thing is even possible, let alone the source and circumstances of a miracle in the past."

You get it backwards.

You don't first verify what events are possible and then go on verifying events from that.

You verify events and then verify what is possible from that.

"I’m genuinely interested, how his a miracle testable and falsifiable. What methodology would you use?"

The historic approach.

C

Sumo

C - is not hogwash, it is literally true. Science IS the best method we have for removing bias. Do you have a better one?

“And to be laid down at the lab door, that is a bias” - what exactly are you referring to here? What is the bias that permeates all of science? A community with diverse backgrounds, cultures, and religions? What is the exact bias and societal conspiracy you’re claiming?

Checking previously held beliefs at the lab door is simply good science. Previously held Beliefs should not inform the data or the conclusion. Which is largely the problem with creationism
And flood geology - creationists are attempting to go into the lab with the answer they want the data to fit.

I would reckon, if there was supporting data and evidence, creationism and flood geology would have some non religious proponents. I do not care in the least if the earth is young or old. If there’s was a global flood. If there’s a god. I do not care. I’m fascinated by the science and journey of discovery no matter the answer. I would have no problem accepting flood geology or young earth if there was compelling evidence. Truly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

C - "Science IS the best method we have for removing bias. Do you have a better one?"

None for removing all bias, but certainly a better one for removing incorrect bias: Catholicism.

"what exactly are you referring to here? What is the bias that permeates all of science?"

The idea that a Catholic scientist should lay down his Catholicism at the lab door as if it were a bias.

"A community with diverse backgrounds, cultures, and religions? What is the exact bias and societal conspiracy you’re claiming?"

The bias is, the idea that a Catholic scientist should lay down his Catholicism at the lab door as if it were a bias.

The conspiracy is to withhold funding from labs that would disagree. The conspiracy part probably doesn't involve researchers at your lab and is probably invisible to you.

"Checking previously held beliefs at the lab door is simply good science."

Not the least.

"Previously held Beliefs should not inform the data or the conclusion."

When you analyse blood, you usually do so according to the previously held belief from Harvey that the heart is pumping it through the body and through hearts, lungs and brain.

A previously held belief is only a problem if erroneous.

"Which is largely the problem with creationism"

A previously held belief is not a problem if it is correct.

"And flood geology - creationists are attempting to go into the lab with the answer they want the data to fit."

You are:
a) concluding that from the same type of data I used to consider you biassed
or
b) making the kind of conspiracy theory about Creationists that you reproached me for doing about Evolutionist scientists

"I would reckon, if there was supporting data and evidence, creationism and flood geology would have some non religious proponents."

No, because the data and evidence would sway researchers into accepting some kind of religion. Confer the case of Alvin Plantinga.

"I do not care in the least if the earth is young or old. If there’s was a global flood. If there’s a god. I do not care."

Then discuss it on its merit with people who believe in a God, believe there was a global Flood, believe the earth is what you would call "young" (i e far younger than you believe), but so far, mostly, you haven't. You have demonstrated an extreme bias against our positions, and on each item when it was challenged pretended it was good methodology.

"I’m fascinated by the science and journey of discovery no matter the answer. I would have no problem accepting flood geology or young earth if there was compelling evidence. Truly."

There is.

How about waiting with the heat problem YOU want to discuss, until I have had time to watch appropriate parts of Gutsick's video and comment on them?

Here, the ABC was interrupted

Sumo didn't want to get on with that kind of structure, I give his following comment in integrality:

Sumo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl yes, one should absolutely lay down Catholicism or any previously held religion or ideology. That’s the entire point. However you slice it, one should not enter the lab with an agenda.

Claiming a miracle is different than a natural event is bias? Well what do you even mean by miracle then?

Why call it a miracle at all? Aren’t you invoking something about an event that you deem miraculous as being somehow different than a natural event? Is it not different?

Sure, it’s fine to propose phenomena we do not yet know is possible. But then it comes to defending the thesis or hypothesis and explaining why a miracle should be a candidate explanation for said phenomena. Pretty standard.

Also, I’d argue your method for testing for miracles is potentially fallacious.

“Beyond all known cures” does not mean there isn’t a cure. And there are natural medical cases of spontaneous remission. How would one verify whether the the remission had a natural or supernatural cause? There’s no validation or verification in the method you described.

And funding withheld from labs that don’t believe religious beliefs should be checked at the lab door? Mate I literally have friends at st Vincent’s in NYC, they write grant proposals all the time… and they get funded. I have a close friend at Mt Sinai as well, PhD from NYU, she’s running the lab there. Also no issues with getting funding.

Like I said, there’s plenty of amazing scientists who are religious. A good scientists should still go into a lab with a blank slate.

On to cosmology. There’s actually a healthy debate in cosmology over the cosmological constant. As our technology gets more precise, our measurements for the two current methods are diverging - super novae standard candles or the CMB. We’re also now starting to look at gravitational waves to provide more insight. Either way, the universe is still expanding, we can measure that. And yes, any universe that is, on average, expanding into the future, must have a geodesic boundary point - where inflation begins. But this is not an ultimate beginning of everything. There’s quite a lot to get into concerning pre big bang cosmology and quantum gravity.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl these discussions are getting long and broaching many different subjects. Might help keep it to one at time.

Let’s address the bit about radiometric dating. If you have sources for the other claims I’ll be happy to take a look. As for the one you did provide, the one by Funkhouser and Naughton. I have to ask, did you read the paper or are you quoting from somewhere else? Either is fine, I do the same sometimes.

But I have to ask, because if you read the paper, the study was on the xenoliths, not the lava, and not really about dating the material either.

Xenoliths are inclusions, foreign rock carried up from deep within the mantle.

The particular xenoliths primarily of “olivine, a pale-green iron-magnesium silicate mineral” carry excess argon, and due to that, are one of the types of rocks that cannot be dated by the K-Ar method. The authors made it explicitly clear the “ages” measured were not geologically relevant.

They were testing the material and it’s impact on the system. They were able to determine that the excess gas resides primarily in fluid bubbles in the minerals of the xenoliths, where it cannot escape upon reaching the surface. That was the entire point of the study. They were never dating the lava flows.

From the following

I extracted a metadiscussion to below. It's first part is from top field of my next adress, other parts are marked with ... where I extracted them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Claiming a miracle is different than a natural event is bias? Well what do you even mean by miracle then?"

I did not say miracles are not different from natural events. I am saying they are not different as to how we know them - the whole difference being about what caused them.

"Why call it a miracle at all? Aren’t you invoking something about an event that you deem miraculous as being somehow different than a natural event? Is it not different?"

That I need another explanation for a miracle doesn't mean I need another type of observation for a miracle than for other events.

"Sure, it’s fine to propose phenomena we do not yet know is possible."

Correcting you : referring to (not proposing) phenomena we already (as opposed to "not yet") know are facts.

"But then it comes to defending the thesis or hypothesis and explaining why a miracle should be a candidate explanation for said phenomena. Pretty standard."

The phenomenon is already a fact. The reason why calling it a miracle is a candidate explanation for it is that standard scientific explanations are not available but all of them excluded.

"Also, I’d argue your method for testing for miracles is potentially fallacious."

As in following critique?

"“Beyond all known cures” does not mean there isn’t a cure."

Beyond all known views of heat disposal doesn't mean there is a heat problem.

"And there are natural medical cases of spontaneous remission."

We are dealing with cases where spontaneous remission by natural causes is excluded.

"How would one verify whether the the remission had a natural or supernatural cause? There’s no validation or verification in the method you described."

The verification it had no natural causes is made by doctors who KNOW the natural causes that are applicable.

"And funding withheld from labs that don’t believe religious beliefs should be checked at the lab door?"

Meaning within the kind of institutions that you recognise as scientific.

"Mate I literally have friends at st Vincent’s in NYC, they write grant proposals all the time… and they get funded. I have a close friend at Mt Sinai as well, PhD from NYU, she’s running the lab there. Also no issues with getting funding."

St. Vincent's in NYC is a hospital. They are not holding some specially Catholic belief about the diseases, because that is not relevant. They do have a Catholic view on medical ethics, or at least formerly had. They would have less qualms than you to test a miraculous cure and conclude it was miraculous. Is Mt. Sinai also a medical related thing?

Because if it is, the discussion becomes radically less interesting to me.

Know why? a) when my ma studied at Med school Vienna, it was not a sect that brainwashed students into Evolutionism.
b) since then, it seems that more than one such institution has turned into that kind of sect, like promoting the idea that Creationism is a mental disease.
c) part of the issue is comparing Creationists (who by the way also have no problem getting funded, except me who have no PhD) to quacks.
d) medical practitioners and personnel are notoriously obtuse about human issues, and the relation between régimes and promoted ideologies, between funding and research, is clearly such a thing.

...

"On to cosmology. There’s actually a healthy debate in cosmology over the cosmological constant. As our technology gets more precise, our measurements for the two current methods are diverging"

There is no healthy debate outside creationists about Big Bang.

"super novae standard candles or the CMB. We’re also now starting to look at gravitational waves to provide more insight."

Super novae standard candles are based on standard candles tout court.
Standard candles tout court are based on "main series" which is based on the issue that certain stars with a spectrum similar to the Sun have a size within an order of magnitude from that of the Sun, which in turn involves apparent size and distance, while distance is only "known" to any of these standard candles of the first order by presuming Heliocentrism.

"Either way, the universe is still expanding, we can measure that. And yes, any universe that is, on average, expanding into the future, must have a geodesic boundary point - where inflation begins."

Expansion is just one way of accounting for the red shift (I think there are four, each testable by observations on earth). Even assuming expansion, one need not conclude it started from zero cubic nanometers. Which is what Big Bang is about, pushing the expansion as far back as possible.

"But this is not an ultimate beginning of everything. There’s quite a lot to get into concerning pre big bang cosmology and quantum gravity."

I at least know the proof side of it is unsound.

"these discussions are getting long and broaching many different subjects. Might help keep it to one at time."

I have no problem keeping up. My main irritation is your deflecting from what I say and repeating the same point over again without even adressing mine.

"Let’s address the bit about radiometric dating. If you have sources for the other claims I’ll be happy to take a look. As for the one you did provide, the one by Funkhouser and Naughton. I have to ask, did you read the paper or are you quoting from somewhere else? Either is fine, I do the same sometimes."

As already mentioned, I took that reference from a page on CMI (Creation Ministries International).

How do you date a New Zealand volcano?
by Robert Doolan, This article is from
Creation 13(1):15, December 1990
https://creation.com/how-do-you-date-a-new-zealand-volcano

"But I have to ask, because if you read the paper, the study was on the xenoliths, not the lava, and not really about dating the material either."

It certainly involved radiometric dates for it.

"Xenoliths are inclusions, foreign rock carried up from deep within the mantle."

Like, Doolan did not seem to think that the date was about xenoliths. He obviously thought it was about the lava.

If it actually was about the xenoliths, that would explain the date of 2 thousand 600 sth million years.

"That was the entire point of the study. They were never dating the lava flows."

It seems the lava flows have been dated anyway, if it was the same volcano, the parts above air getting no excess ages, the parts in water close to land getting 1 million and the parts a km or two from the coast getting over two million years.

This would suggest that a lava flow cooled by cold water would solidify earlier and therefore trap more argon. It is even possible to my minds the xenoliths were part of the lava flow cooling even more rapidly.

And 2 million years by 200 years, that is a factor of 10 000, why is there no heat problem in that area? Because argon was trapped in precisely the cooling.

A G A I N - I am perfectly willing to adress this precise point, but once again, this was not the part of the video I commented on at the time stamp 7:23. CAN you please wait till I get to the parts of the video where Gutsick is adressing the issue of how much parent material there was?

Sumo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl “it seems the lava flows have been dated anyway” - what are you referring to? The paper you cited does not date the lava flows. It tested the xenoliths. This is a common technique of creationist propaganda, to misrepresent research and misapply techniques to propagate misinformation.

You’re reasoning for miracles is a pretty standard version of the argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because we don’t know the cause for X does not mean an alternative Y is true. Y still needs to be demonstrated.

In your example, failing to find a natural cause for the healing/remission of a patient does not mean the cause is supernatural - or any other alternative hypothesis. The hypothesis that the cause is supernatural would require it’s own supporting evidence. Just like any other hypothesis.

“That I need another explanation for a miracle doesn't mean I need another type of observation for a miracle than for other events.” - yes, I’ve said the manifestation of the supernatural/miracle, can be observed/investigated. But how do you demonstrate the events are truly supernatural in nature, and how do you demonstrable verify the source of the miracle?

“I at least know the proof side of it is unsound” - the proof side of what is unsound? Big bang cosmology? What do you believe is unsound?

The Big Bang is not about something that started from “zero cubic meters” - the Big Bang singularity is technically a breakdown of general relativity and classical space time, more so a sign post for new physics then a physical description about reality.

...

“It seems the lava flows have been dated anyway, if it was the same volcano… And 2 million years by 200 years, that is a factor of 10 000” - what? I just explained how that is a complete misrepresentation of the paper. The lava flows were not tested. This is just a false statement.

“A G A I N - I am perfectly willing to adress this precise point, but once again, this was not the part of the video I commented on at the time stamp 7:23. CAN you please wait till I get to the parts of the video where Gutsick is adressing the issue of how much parent material there was?”

I don’t think Erica address the heat problem in this video. This video is more dedicated to the science of radiometric dating.

“Beyond all known views of heat disposal doesn't mean there is a heat problem.

“Beyond all known views of heat disposal doesn't mean there is a heat problem.” - well… that is the heat “problem”, there are no known ways to mitigate the heat. I think it’s like 23,000 kelvin if I remember correctly. That’s 5 times hotter than the sun.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The paper you cited does not date the lava flows."

Perhaps someone else did.

"It tested the xenoliths. This is a common technique of creationist propaganda, to misrepresent research and misapply techniques to propagate misinformation."

That is a very clear conspiracy theory against Creationism.

"Just because we don’t know the cause for X does not mean an alternative Y is true. Y still needs to be demonstrated."

Seen causalities being material can be documented outside what they cause (obviously unless you take "cause" as broadly as to include the light or electrons they reflect or absorb).

Unseen causalities, material or not, can be documented by what they cause.

Your critique would involve an impossibility to document any unseen causality, including for that matter certain material ones, like electrons.

It proves too much, especially on your views (I'm less dogmatic on the existence of electrons), and is therefore moot.

"The hypothesis that the cause is supernatural would require it’s own supporting evidence."

No. The hypothesis that the cause is supernatural requires:
a) the result happend
b) there is no natural cause.

"yes, I’ve said the manifestation of the supernatural/miracle, can be observed/investigated."

The miracle is the manifestation of the supernatural. The miracle can still be observed.

In order to argue it is not a miracle, you are not changing that the event is observed (unless for cases when you'd argue the story is a fraud), you are simply changing the classification.

Unfortunately, to classify certain events as not miracles, while still not denying they happened, obliges to give at least some realistic explanation in principle how a natural cause could do that.

"But how do you demonstrate the events are truly supernatural in nature, and how do you demonstrable verify the source of the miracle?"

How do I demonstrably verify the source of your comments is human?

I exclude that a bot could argue about these things like you do.

Verifying the divine, like verifying the human, unlike verifying mechanistic causes, excluded both for your exchange of ideas and for a certain events, including recently in connexion with Lourdes, is a matter of gut feeling and trust, not about control groups or mechanistic experiments.

"the proof side of what is unsound? Big bang cosmology? What do you believe is unsound?"

Yes, the proof side of Heliocentrism and of Big Bang is unsound. It breaks down already at demonstrating (without an appeal to atheism) that Earth moves.

"The Big Bang is not about something that started from “zero cubic meters” - the Big Bang singularity is technically a breakdown of general relativity and classical space time, more so a sign post for new physics then a physical description about reality."

If the cosmos has expanded from fix stars being 1 light day up on day 6 to them being 3 light years up, near Harmageddon, that is very different from Big Bang cosmology, but still compatible with them expanding away from us.

...

"I don’t think Erica address the heat problem in this video. This video is more dedicated to the science of radiometric dating."

Which is clearly relevant for the heat problem - because it involves the statement "so much worth of radioactive decay has happened" ...

If this is not where Erica adresses the heat problem of radiometric decay, you simply wait till there is a video that does it and I comment on that one.

You suggested to stay at one argument at a time, and you basically require me to deflect from even outside the video.

"well… that is the heat “problem”, there are no known ways to mitigate the heat. I think it’s like 23,000 kelvin if I remember correctly. That’s 5 times hotter than the sun."

Unless there were some kind of factor unknown to you ... that's what you suggest about miracles in Lourdes, right?

On YOUR principles, I could simply say that's an "argument from ignorance" - like the six months worth of antibiotics cure concentrated into one moment when Jesus healed lepers. How come that much penicilline at one go didn't kill them by ruining their stomach?

...

Why would either of these be of any concern to any legitimate part of med school, like anatomy or pathology?

I was confronted with another version of a heat problem in 2015 or 2016. It concerned the creationist theory of "carbon 14 went up" and I heard "in order to do it that quickly, radioactivity from space would fry everything except spiders to death" - and after some years of researching it with maths and archaeology with Biblical history, I found I didn't need carbon 14 production rates any faster than 10 - 11 times the present rate.

But then, as now, some think the heat problem is one which absolutely MUST sway a rational mind away from creationism.

Where does that come from? Perhaps the most sectarian part of med school : psychiatry. It would not have been the first time that shrinks did political psychiatry and educated students into it, like certainly against Fundie Baptists in the Soviet Union, and arguably even against some non-Czarists or Old Believers before 1917.

Sumo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl “perhaps someone else did” - ok then what’s the source? The article only gives the one reference.

It’s not a conspiracy theory… it’s demonstrable true. Literally in the article you’re quoting. The author is misrepresenting the paper and the data

“No. The hypothesis that the cause is supernatural requires: a) the result happend b) there is no natural cause.”

No, this is just flatly incorrect.

Not only is it unsound as an hypothesis, it’s a logical fallacy.

How does one demonstrate there are no viable natural causes. You may just be unaware of the natural cause. This is a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the heat problem precludes a young earth. Because… it would melt the earth. Creationism is still possible, just the old earth verify.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl electrons are a great example. we can demonstrate electrons interact with matter and are affected by the electromagnetic force.

How do we demonstrate the supernatural manifests or interacts in any capacity?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sumo I am trying to find the source, or would have been doing to later, my immediate one being a creationist (a doctor I think too), on a video I saw years ago.

I haven't been able to look up the original article, this has no bearing on the other source.

You are as far as I know from med school, not from the department of philosophy. Your biassed view on what constitutes a fallacy in "argument from ignorance" is not remotely even interesting.

As said, unseen causes are not proved from seeing, they are proven from what they cause.

If there were only one miracle on record and nothing in the daily existence to suggest there is a God, you might have a point, but when certain factors of our daily existence (observed Geocentrism, obvious fact we have minds to name two) consistently point to God, and miracles do so too, thousands even in modern recent history, invoking a fallacious "argument from ignorance" is ridiculous.

"the heat problem precludes a young earth. Because… it would melt the earth."

Yeah, if it were correct - but how is that not an argument from ignorance, even before I find a solution after getting to the question.

"we can demonstrate electrons interact with matter and are affected by the electromagnetic force"

The only way you can do this is by observing their effects. The same method which for the divine causality you call "argument from ignorance" ...

"How do we demonstrate the supernatural manifests"

Miracles.

"or interacts in any capacity?"

Prophecy and the Biblical revelation.

@Sumo "How do we demonstrate the supernatural manifests or interacts in any capacity?"

Plus Geocentrism.

Plus we have minds and language.

Extracted

from previous

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sumo "yes, one should absolutely lay down Catholicism or any previously held religion or ideology. That’s the entire point. However you slice it, one should not enter the lab with an agenda."

An agenda and a previously held belief is different. Confer previously held beliefs from Harvey. If you believe (as you should) that blood circulates, you should conclude that a damageable substance in the analysis could get to some more vital part than where you pricked the skin.

...

"Like I said, there’s plenty of amazing scientists who are religious. A good scientists should still go into a lab with a blank slate."

Why do certain scientists then go into the lab with a materialistic philosophy? Not only a bias, but a bias for error.

Sumo

And what questions do you think I’m deflecting? Happy to remedy that.

Your claims about conspiracy and brainwashing are getting a bit ridiculous. I’ve asked a few times. Do you have any documented evidence of the repression of research or papers?

Why would anyone care to brainwash people into believing evolution? No body cares outside of religious sects. It doesn’t matter to me one but if humans evolved or not. But ALL of the evidence supports evolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"And what questions do you think I’m deflecting? Happy to remedy that."

First, you are deflecting from the fact that I am not asking your instruction, but facing your arguments.
Second, you are regularly deflecting from the actual content of my argument.
Third, the following example is fairly obvious:

"Your claims about conspiracy and brainwashing are getting a bit ridiculous."

This is a pretty real example. You are not facing a) a claim about societal conspiracy, b) a claim about brainwashing at med school. You are conflating them into one sack, basically treating them as synonyms.

"I’ve asked a few times. Do you have any documented evidence of the repression of research or papers?"

I have already answered. I wrote a letter to Nature Genetics, with links, where I discussed the impossibility of placental mammals gaining in the number of chromosome pairs. I got neither an answer from them, nor in several months any publication while I had access to the journal in a library and could check.

That example is however marginal, compared to this:

"Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications."

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?
By David Buckna, April 1997
https://creation.com/do-creationists-publish-in-notable-refereed-journals

If you ask if I have checked them, that's conspiracy theorising on your part.

"Why would anyone care to brainwash people into believing evolution?"

Why would anyone care to brainwash people into not believing evolution?

Why would "religious sects" not have straight unadulterated evidence on creationism?

"No body cares outside of religious sects. It doesn’t matter to me one but if humans evolved or not. But ALL of the evidence supports evolution."

Given how much you try to "reason with me" it seems you have been told creationism is a mental disease.

Also supported by how little you answer actual arguments compared to how much you spend on pinpointing me as "conspiracy theorist"

...

@Sumo Again, at least one comment of yours suggests that you were at med school.

Again, you are very concerned with two things, that I didn't even bring up.

a) the conspiracy theorising I supposedly do
b) the heat problem I don't back down before.

Not answered

in Sumo's next adress to me.